Last time I checked you're a blithering idiot who talks out of his ass.
Does silicon grow on a beach? In a manner of speaking...
However, the factories that process raw silica into high grade silicon for semi-conductor production are in short supply, and this has driven up the price of silicon. Silica is cheap, and every where. Silicon is manufactured, and currently not cheap (enough for widespread solar panels).
Because I don't pay for the nuclear plant or the hydro dam
Yes you do (if you use power from one).
However, getting the money together to buy and install the solar panels is all on me, the homeowner
No it's not. I see/hear ads from solar power rental places all the time (on local media no less, but then again it is Los Angeles). They will do the full install at no upfront, then charge you amortized payments--if the payments are less than what you save on electricity (which their ads claim will usually be the case, for what that's worth, I have no idea if that part's true) then they pay for themselves on day one.
None of what you just said contributed to the conversation in anyway. All you did was repeat the GP's statement of the problem in more detail.
His point was that nuclear and hydro (and I'll add coal to that list too) power plants take longer to recoup their initial investment, so there's no reason for this to be a problem for solar power other than stupid reporters repeating the myth that it takes to long to pay for itself, and thus people actually believe it.
Collection efficiency (which is what TFA is claiming to be 86%) vs. conversion efficiency (that 40% number you remember) is what you're missing, but from other articles on the technology it appears that the conversion efficiency for these cells should be higher than existing designs:
The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."'
Which could give them ~78% conversion efficiency, still nearly double over the best cells currently.
They don't have to, and the therapy works. It's worked for decades. Antio-biotics are favored for economic reasons (easier to produce, easier to store), but phage therapy works just fine and will likely become necessary in the decades going forward, your half-baked snarks not withstanding.
Nice try (actually, yeah, nice try). But vulnerabilities are not relevant unless they are exploited--what the GP was talking about was the targeting of platforms being a function of their popularity.
So, what are the numbers of actual utilized exploits? What percentage of Apache vs IIS servers actually get compromised?
Or, you keep separate partitions with separate OS installs on your hard drive (like any sane person), and only use cracked software on the partition meant for that, and boot from the clean one for everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked you're a blithering idiot who talks out of his ass.
Does silicon grow on a beach? In a manner of speaking...
However, the factories that process raw silica into high grade silicon for semi-conductor production are in short supply, and this has driven up the price of silicon. Silica is cheap, and every where. Silicon is manufactured, and currently not cheap (enough for widespread solar panels).
Fortunately electric companies are better regulated than the credit card companies. By which of course I mean, regulated at all.
Yeah, but it has to function after ten years too.
You've never left them out in direct sun for ten to twenty years then.
Even when there's no life on Earth we'll be able to produce all the polymers we'll need.
How so? The oil isn't being burned, so it's not ending up in the atmosphere.
Or do you think oil is evil even when it's locked out of the biosphere?
Oil isn't bad. The byproducts of burning it are.
And for that matter, you can produce polymers from bio-oil just as well (though not so cheaply).
Because I don't pay for the nuclear plant or the hydro dam
Yes you do (if you use power from one).
However, getting the money together to buy and install the solar panels is all on me, the homeowner
No it's not. I see/hear ads from solar power rental places all the time (on local media no less, but then again it is Los Angeles). They will do the full install at no upfront, then charge you amortized payments--if the payments are less than what you save on electricity (which their ads claim will usually be the case, for what that's worth, I have no idea if that part's true) then they pay for themselves on day one.
None of what you just said contributed to the conversation in anyway. All you did was repeat the GP's statement of the problem in more detail.
His point was that nuclear and hydro (and I'll add coal to that list too) power plants take longer to recoup their initial investment, so there's no reason for this to be a problem for solar power other than stupid reporters repeating the myth that it takes to long to pay for itself, and thus people actually believe it.
Hot air. Hot air. Dammit, you missed the obvious joke by 998.7 kg/m^3.
Collection efficiency (which is what TFA is claiming to be 86%) vs. conversion efficiency (that 40% number you remember) is what you're missing, but from other articles on the technology it appears that the conversion efficiency for these cells should be higher than existing designs:
The silicon wire arrays created by Atwater and his colleagues are able to convert between 90 and 100 percent of the photons they absorb into electrons--in technical terms, the wires have a near-perfect internal quantum efficiency. "High absorption plus good conversion makes for a high-quality solar cell," says Atwater. "It's an important advance."'
Which could give them ~78% conversion efficiency, still nearly double over the best cells currently.
Well, just don't forget to reinsert the kidney afterwards.
They don't have to, and the therapy works. It's worked for decades. Antio-biotics are favored for economic reasons (easier to produce, easier to store), but phage therapy works just fine and will likely become necessary in the decades going forward, your half-baked snarks not withstanding.
Where's the -1 Stupid Ass mod when I need it?
What I see is an article written to lousy journalistic standards.
Which disinfectants? Low molarity alcohol solution? Maybe. High molarity Lye? Not so much.
Because Americans are morons and think those are the ONLY possible positions.
To be fair, this is more like 60% random, not 99.99%.
Nice try (actually, yeah, nice try). But vulnerabilities are not relevant unless they are exploited--what the GP was talking about was the targeting of platforms being a function of their popularity.
So, what are the numbers of actual utilized exploits? What percentage of Apache vs IIS servers actually get compromised?
So, by your logic, Apache is the worm-riddled piece of shit webserver, and not IIS, right?
Or are you just an ignorant fanboy?
My user space is backed up locally on physical medium, and remotely on a 'cloud' service.
I don't care if it gets borked, I'm back up and running in ten minutes.
Tracking down and fixing a problem in the OS is a lot harder than fixing something happening in user space.
Or, you keep separate partitions with separate OS installs on your hard drive (like any sane person), and only use cracked software on the partition meant for that, and boot from the clean one for everything else.
I certainly don't lean against the lid. What do you think I am, a fucking animal?
Semi-trivial solutions to everything you just mentioned have already been discussed above.
It isn't exactly a secrete that Microsoft would rather you pirate their software than use Linux, so yeah the BSA probably shares that opinion.
The official policy at Microsoft is that as long as you're using their product, they'll find a way to make you pay eventually.
http://youporn.com/
Rack up the felonies.